I think of planes as having a CAP Theorem like trade off between speed, safety, utility (can I take a family of 6), and price. A used 172 is pretty safe but greatly lacks in other categories. A Lancair 4P optimizes for speed, but greatly sacrifices safety. a Pilatus maximizes all but price, yet it costs $3 million. Bonanzas are pretty good on speed, and utility but a bit more expensive than most piston singles, decent used ones cost $350k+.
I own a Mooney, which burns 10 GPH and does 160kts. Fits two people just fine and three if you sacrifice fuel. A good trade off over all. Definitely think the 172 is the least badass plane with almost no upsides other than being a good trainer.
Totally agree with you it's all about what you are looking for (range, payload, power, efficiency). The 172 is a fine trainer, but it really doesn't excel in several dimensions. That may be fine for some folks missions, but for others you are going to have to spend a bit more if you want to be good in a few of those. When I got my private cert and started focusing on my instrument training and flying in hard IMC and potentially deal with icing, I had to step up my requirements.
Any turbocharged airplane with a hot prop will be better than a 172 in icing. Turbo gives you altitude flexibility and power to get out of the ice (rarely more than 4000’ thick vertically) and the hot prop will help you pull through it.
(I have a turbo and TKS on my A36. Almost never need the TKS.)
100% this! If I expect icing beyond trace/light, waiting or flying around it is my plan on anything with props. (I didn’t buy TKS to fly in ice; I bought TKS because it was already on the airplane that I otherwise wanted and having it was not a deal-breaker.)
At a certain point you can question the suitability of the traditional twin engine piston IFR types for true commercial level FIKI. Not least because most of the examples are well into their middle age, most types are somewhat marginal on one engine, and single engine mishandling is rarely survivable.
In reality most people who can afford to run a piston twin are moving down to a Cirrus or moving up to a turbine single.
I think the move up to a turbine single is driven by maintenance dispatch reliability ("will the airplane work when I show up to fly it?") more than weather dispatch reliability ("is the airplane equipped and powerful enough for the weather challenge I'll face today?").
Turbines give you much higher power reserves at low altitude, so they are better in icing on departure and approach, but that difference doesn't come up nearly as often as generalized maintenance issues. (Owning a 1976 piston twin was an overall negative experience. I loved the airplane, but it was a maintenance hog, mostly aging systems and aging design philosophy related.)
I agree 100% that the piston twin is a dying breed, but I think it's almost never to do with FIKI (flight-into-known-icing) issues.
Have TKS. I don't believe you can get that on a 172 (but a 182 you can).
That said I've heard anecdotally a 172/182 can carry ice better than a lot of other aircraft (I've only been iced up in a 172, never on a Mooney). That shouldn't matter anyways since you should avoid ice as much as possible.
My father flew a lot and owned a Comanche B and later a Twin Comanche turbo. I spent a lot of time in and around Comanches. Great looking airplane and nice to fly in.
As I understand it, the most lenient certification to allow someone to sell planes to masses in USA is the (special) Primary Category¹, for the General Aviation, which Cessna's two-seat 152 model seems to be in. Cessna's four-seat model 172, however, is on another category, the so-called "Utility Aircraft", which required the more costly Standard Certification². With a broader (legally permitted) use, it's kind of natural to expect an appropriate price difference.
Liability as well. Aircraft used to be cheaper (in real terms). At some point the law changed so that aircraft manufacturers could be sued if someone died in a crash. I don't remember the specifics, but this caused several companies to go out of business and others to raise their prices.
Edit: probably the manufacturer could always be sued, but the change made it easier. I can't remember the specifics.
The number of gear up landings on Mooneys surprisingly high. As for cirruses, they are rather unforgiving, and I think people get some confidence with the parachute--every time I hear about an accident, I feel I'm reading about another Cirrus.
Another reason there are so many Cirrus accidents is that in an effort to improve its safety record, Cirrus began advising its pilots to use the parachute whenever in doubt. I don't mean this as a knock in the slightest -- the statistics are very convincing that this is saving lives[1]. But a funny side effect is that you see a bunch of accidents where someone parachutes a Cirrus into a field that any other airplane would have just landed in.
Yeah, I recently went through Cirrus training, I'm quite current for a GA pilot (150 hours a year, commercial and instrument ratings) and personally feel it's a lot of plane. Most of the avionics and checklists, while great if you are used to it could easily task saturate you. It could probably also lure you into thinking it's a Tesla and not an airplane.
A Cirrus is an easy plane to get behind in. Jumping from a C152 that putters along at 90kts leaves you with a lot of time to work the checklists. When I started flying the high performance aircraft it was really easy to miss things because everything was faster. The cirrus was fun but you have to pay attention.
My uncle did that in his Mooney, in fact, not terribly many years ago. He was super embarrassed, but it is, as you say, pretty common. The gear-up landing was a non-event from a safety POV, but was essentially financially terminal for the plane -- prop hit the ground, etc.
As you can buy a one ray lidar sensor for about a $100 for drones, with about 50m of range, I wonder why it can't be used in full scale airplanes?
It could be used to point down at the ground, and when the lidar is confident of the range and if the gear is up, then trigger an alarm.
I get that there's more things involved for a practical implementation (weight, reliability, added complexity) but still... What am I missing?
Task saturation. It's windy, turbulent, your wife is uncomfortable and giving you looks. Someone cuts you off as you are landing, you go around. The field is busy and as you come back around for landing you're focusing about being unable to get your radio calls in. You land to the sounds of grating metal... Just one of 1000 scenarios.
As mentioned there are alarms already, but you can drown it out if sufficiently overloaded. Its best to recognize overload, take a deep breath and go back when calm.
There are similar (but more basic) systems built into some retractable gear aircraft. They generally provide an audible alert if the plane appears about to land but the gear is still up.
Pilots still land gear up, even with the alarm sounding. There is (or at least was) even a public (YouTube) video of this happening from a passenger filming.
Landing a plane is not difficult (source: I’m a pilot) but there’s a lot going on. This is clearly a UI/UX issue but innovation is relatively slow in the certified market.
And yeah, before anyone says "but the beeping!" - yup, people are fallible. I've managed to scratch a car in a similar but far cheaper setting: start up...set navigation...go into reverse...think about the traffic announcement...think about garage keys...hear parking sensors beeping...beeping intensifies...CRUNCH...facepalm, dammit I was supposed to brake! In my case, this was a low-speed, low-energy collision, so just a tiny scratch on plastic, but I can definitely see how a minor distraction can turn into a major accident.
The anecdote I've heard is that the gear up / low throttle alarm is usually the component to break and people fail to replace it, which leads to gear ups.
you know what always grinds my gears... the fact that everyone stops short of reminding the normals that litigation in private aviation lead to the fact that the final Cessna 152 was produced in 1985
Cessna ceased production of all light aircraft in 1986, citing increasing lawsuits and legal liability for things it could not control in any practical sense. This had a huge negative impact on the GA economy and culture, because until that point, Cessna was producing more aircraft than any other company in history, and its 152 and 172 models were the most widely used trainers and safest GA aircraft ever made.
In 1994, Congress passed GARA[1], and two years later Cessna began producing new aircraft again. But having been out of the industry for a decade, Cessna lacked some combination of the means and confidence to bring back its entire fleet; so it focused on the 172 for the training market and abandoned the 152, which never saw production again.
How about Vans Aircraft? Homebuilt are often overlooked, but an RV-10/14 gives you some good options. Only downside with homebuilt IMO is lack of ability to train in them.
I wanted an RV7 when I started flying. Partly due to the price, it seemed like a good trade off to be practical. I've flown a few of them, but never long term. We saw several in the 2 years of shopping and one was pretty sketch in terms of build quality.
My wife got her PPL and all the sudden had an opinion on what to buy. :) She's now a CFII so her opinion matters.
I still would be into getting one if my wife was sold on home built.
Another benefit of E-AB category is that you can do your own maintenance and annual condition inspections (if you are the builder), saving you a gazillion in recurring costs.
Plus the freedom to modify. In a Cessna, you can’t so much as run a USB charger out to the panel without the FAA coming down on you like a ton of bricks. On an experimental, if you want the latest electronics or if you want to swap in a different engine, go right ahead, sparky!
(Disclaimer: I’m 3.5 years into a RV-7 build so I’m biased)
> you can do your own maintenance and annual condition inspections (if you are the builder), saving you a gazillion in recurring costs.
You're not kidding. I think the cheapest annual inspection I've ever seen was around $2,000 for an old, clean 172 that needed zero actual work. More typical is ~$4,000-$10,000 for a modern-ish 4 seater, depending on what they need to do. Throw in $20,000 every several years for an engine overhaul. If you have a G1000 and they need to touch it, it's going to cost you at least half a car.
I have an RV-10, and it’s amazing. I can take 4 adults at 160kts burning 10gph, it’s easy to handle for a high performance airplane, and it’s such a simple design that maintenance costs are low.
In aircraft engines, turbocharging is commonly used to maintain manifold pressure as altitude increases (i.e. to compensate for lower-density air at higher altitudes). Since atmospheric pressure reduces as the aircraft climbs, power drops as a function of altitude in normally aspirated engines. Systems that use a turbocharger to maintain an engine's sea-level power output are called turbo-normalized systems. Generally, a turbo-normalized system attempts to maintain a manifold pressure of 29.5 inHg
Many turbo cars can do this too. The turbos are not sized to the bare minimum to make rates powe at sea level, so they can compensate.
His is one of the reasons why turbodiesels are valued for hauling. They can still make (near) rated power across the Rockies, where an NA engine might be down 30-40%
My best guess is turbocharged to bring pressure at the carburetor to atmospheric pressure at sea level (1 atm.). So, you're not putting much more stress on the engine than it would get without the turbo at sea level, but you get constant engine performance up to a good altitude.
(pilot here) Cessna was a badass plane 50 years ago, but it is no longer; for the past 20 years is is lagging a lot behind in terms of weight, engine power and fuel consumption.
I have very little time on 152 and 172, definitely not an expert, but from the ~ 10 plane models I flied as pilot the Cessnas were at the bottom 3. For 2 seaters an 152 is twice as heavy as the other planes, the engine is obsolete giving low power with high fuel consumption, practically for a 2-seater Rotax 912 powered LSA's are better from any point of view: lighter, faster, cheaper to buy and operate, have shorter take of and landing (better power to weight ratio), fly longer (better mileage) and nicer to fly (fast and agile).
For the 172 there is no much competition and that is a very bad thing; this is the only reason the 172 is so popular. When a two-seater can be bought for less than $100k new, a 4-seater is crazy expensive for no particular reason.
A legend among the pilots and plane owners is that for every plane sold Cessna was covering the manufacturing cost with half of the money and litigation with the other half. I read that in a couple of magazines too, it is hard to confirm if it is entirely true but there is something there. Also the biggest recent fail of Cessna, the 162, was built in China and still extremely expensive - almost double the price of a similar plane built in Europe (Comco Ikarus and Flight Design in Germany, Pipistrel in Slovenia or Evektor in Czech Republic).
Overall, Cessna is the Harley Davidson of the aviation world: the company that is going on inertia building obsolete products based on a brand image built decades ago.
> Overall, Cessna is the Harley Davidson of the aviation world
Not in terms of safety. I mentioned below somewhere that the main feature of a Cessna 182 is probably the very slow stalling speed. Cost of operation and cost ratio of the engine is maybe where your argument is true.
Safety in aviation is a different story, I never said Cessna has planes that are not safe. In this class all the planes have very low stall speed, Cessna is not better than others. If you compare with much faster planes (cruise and top speed), they also have higher stall speeds, they tend to go together.
LSAs are generally characterised by low stall speeds. Something like a Diamond DA-20 (arguably a competitor to the 152, used a lot for primary training) stalls at a slower speed in fact.
I would imagine their brand is also strong because of the used market. If I were in the market for planes I'd probably be in the market for cheaper, used planes.
They tried building modern aircraft; the Columbia 400 was very competitive with the SR22T, but hardly sold any. Seems like people enjoy their tin can airplanes just fine.
$700k for a 4-seater is not competitive with anything. Even Pipistrel Panthera at $500k is not popular, even if it is a very good plane. I am comparing with a $100k 2-seater, going 2 times larger for 7 times the price is bad math, considering you have a single engine, fixed gear,etc/ Yes, it compares with a SR22, but it is not what the market is expecting, a scaled-up 2-seater getting to 4 seats at $150k. That would be the killer plane, not the overly expensive ones at $500-750k available now.
Ironically, the main thing that makes Cessnas such badass planes (at least piston Cessnas -- the company makes jets too) is that they are not badass at all. They are docile and forgiving and practical and reliable and easy to fly. They are the Toyota Camrys of airplanes.
That forgiving / lack of speed thing seems critical.
I read crash reports from time to time. Pilot without a lot of experience in faster planes trades up for a faster plane and can't keep up with the situation happens time and again.
It seems like there is a sort of multi level system of pilots out there and the slower and forgiving planes keep a lot of folks safe who otherwise might be in trouble in something faster.
Faster planes just require far more experience. Typically owner/operators simply do not fly enough to gain that critical mass of experience.
Additionally, the fastest of aircraft, jets, typically operate with 2 crew members so the odds of a critical mistake from both pilots falling behind at the same time is drastically reduced.
There's an emerging market for fast (300kt), turbofan powered, "relatively inexpensive"(still $2m+) light/very light jets. For example, Cirrus SF50 (Vision Jet) and HondaJet. There are also some larger business jets in the Cessna Citation and Embraer Phenom line that can be used for single pilot ops.
So, there's definitely an opportunity for wealthy, owner-operator pilots to fly fast aircraft that might be too much airplane for them. Turbofan aircraft do require an additional type rating (i.e. more training/qualification). Type ratings however do not expire, so one could find themselves in a situation where they're legally allowed to fly but not proficient enough to do so safely.
I read a report where the pilot was trying out a turbofan that his employer was looking at buying. The guy selling the plane felt like the pilot was just not keeping up with the plane, didn't sell it to the charter company.
Charter company got another plane somewhere else ( it didn't say how or where ). On a flight the pilot somehow didn't notice the autopilot disconnected, plane drifted into this long turn. Once the pilot realized something was up he grabbed the controls and pulled them hard over and snapped off the wings.
It seems like time is the key element, the faster you go the less time you have to assess the situation before things start going wrong and things keep compounding.
Extra guy, more chances of keeping on top of things, etc.
This and generally speaking the faster the plane the more inputs and outputs you have which makes navigating a decision tree harder.
Cessna with fixed gear, one engine, no autopilot: if suddenly you find yourself in a dangerous or scary situation there’s not much you have to check to get a troubleshooting picture of the situation.
Turbo twin with all the bells and whistles: not only are you traveling much faster (possibly in to a dangerous situation) but there a ton more inputs and variables to take in and a lot more things you can change to right the situation. It can be overwhelming.
Newer planes reverse this to an extent. Modern engines with FADEC lower pilot workload considerably. Basically - you have a single power lever, vs anywhere from about 3-5 controls on older carbureted engines.
I'm trying to think what 5 levers you are thinking of. Obviously, throttle, prop, mixture. Carb heat is probably the 4th. The 5th is where things get a bit esoteric, perhaps manual turbo waste gate (aka second throttle)?
Sounds like the up-in-the-air version of (mostly) middle-age guys getting motorbikes that are just too damn powerful for their level of experience and then getting killed.
The Corolla and the Cessna 172 are the world's most manufactured car & aircraft respectively. Toyota makes more Corollas in a month than the total number of Cessna 172s ever made.
Cessna 172 is one of the cheapest, simplest planes you can buy... a 10 year old used 172S is $150,000++ however.
With fewer and fewer planes being made, the remaining planes continue to get more and more expensive. The world of general aviation shrinks each year, and as such the prices continue to climb.
Fortunately, there are a number of clubs where people pool their money into collective ownership of airplanes. Its roughly $150/flight hour (more or less, depending on the club's equipment of course). If I were to ever go into GA, I'd probably start with a club to get my earlier licenses.
$15,000 and a few months would be all you need to get your pilot's license and start flying (including the price of flight instructors / ground schools). Overall, cheaper than I expected. You wouldn't want to go into this hobby thinking you'd save money... at best you save time inside of a certain range (Cessna only cruise at 160mph, while commercial airlines cruise at 500mph. As such, GA flights need to be within 2 or 3 hours (or ~1 hour commercial flight) to even save time).
I don’t think GA is shrinking so much as it’s segmented so hobbyists do ultralight aviation such as powered paragliding, used aircraft cover most of the classic GA side of things, and new aircraft are for people or companies with money to burn. On top of this, drones and satellite’s are filling in for some stuff at the margins.
PS: A new set of paragliding equipment runs 10-15k, but it’s more like a jet pack than a traditional aircraft.
I know of several groups like this in the Southeast US, where a couple of execs live in smaller cities (e.g. Columbus, Augusta), pool on an aircraft (and sometimes a condo) and commute to Atlanta (Peachtree/Dekalb Airport is pretty convenient to downtown) for work.
There also used to be a regular small plane service between Peachtree/Dekalb and Birmingham, AL for BellSouth personnel operated by the company. BellSouth split it's HQ between both places.
I wouldn’t especially call Luscombes nice planes. I’m not a fan of their stall characteristics or ground handling. A J-3 is the most expensive airplane in the group for its capabilities. You’re paying a lot for that “Piper Cub” name.
I think Taylorcrafts are a good bang-for-your-buck. I’m also partial to Citabrias.
I’ve flown about 20 types of small taildraggers, for whatever that’s worth.
My grandfather had a Luscombe story. He was flying in one sometime in the 50s or 60s in California, and a stiff breeze came in from the mountains. The Luscombe (8A or 8B) had only a 65 hp motor, and flying into that breeze it actually travelled backward over land.
If you get a Luscombe, make sure to fly it in favorable weather conditions only :)
Awesome! Thanks for the links. My family has a 2006 highlander(essentially a v6 Camry suv) which has carted us coast to coast multiple times. We bought it used at 110k miles a few years ago and it is at almost 200k miles now.
We enjoy having fun cars but try to always have a reliable Toyota as our daily- and long distance- driver.
> [...] A former British special forces soldier, who asked not to be identified because he still consults on active operations, says he too has faced the Hilux, which he refers to as "the technical," in both Iraq and Afghanistan. "I'd say the appeal is pretty simple," he says. "You can't underestimate the value of having a vehicle that is fast, will never break down, and is strong enough to mount a heavy weapon in the back."
I absolutely loathe these pop-journalism fanboy articles.
The grunts are going to love whatever solves their problems. Whatever vehicle they get to ride in instead of walking is going to get massive praise because whatever it is is worlds better than walking. That doesn't mean it's a automatically better than any other vehicle.
Armies, even non-professional ones don't count "reliability" the way armchair car enthusiasts do. Armchair car enthusiasts generally take for granted the ability to get parts. Armies see that as a supply line they need to spend resources securing. Armchair car enthusiasts consider labor expensive. Armies see labor as cheap. (relatively speaking) because for them it's an issue of ratios, 20 trucks per mechanics vs 21 is a calculation but it isn't big deal compared to "we can commandeer parts for these in any town" vs "we can only get parts for these from X Y or Z".
North African and middle eastern armies run Hiluxes because the logistics for the supply chain for those vehicles exists where they are in the world already making the supply lines comparatively harder to interrupt than some foreign vehicle that has less market penetration locally.
If Yugos were what was locally available then that's what these groups would use.
I don't think you care to ride into battle with a 12.5mm gun mounted on a Yugo, much less a 20mm. That's where the Hilux and other mid-sized vehicles are useful. But your analysis it otherwise pretty accurate.
The "Hacienda" referenced in the article is on display (suspended from the ceiling) at McCarran Airport in Las Vegas. [0]. It's amazing how many people walk by it everyday without any awareness as to its history.
"[I]t set a record for a non-stop endurance flight which has not been broken since. ... They'd drop down a rope, pull up a hose from this truck and just put it in the gas tank. ... The flight lasted 64 days, 22 hours, and 19 minutes."
People are losing it over being quarantined to an apartment for 2 months. These guys lived in a freakin’ Cessna for 2 months and had to constantly tend to the aircraft to stay afloat. Just kinda cool to put it in perspective how challenging that must have been.
Fun note. 64 days is roughly 1,500 hours which is more than 3/4 of the TBO on the Continental O-300 used on this 172. TBO is Time Before Overhaul. They flew over 3/4s of the life out of that engine in one flight. Incredible!
The article is an interesting read as far as the history of the plane and various anecdotes about it are concerned but it doesn't really say why it's still so "badass" nowadays, after 60+ years: is it primarily (1) popular because it's so good (technologically superior, perfectly fit for purpose), or (2) good because it's so popular (i.e. attained a critical mass of people familiar with it)?
The ranking includes all kinds of planes lumped together, some of which are obviously listed because of their technological ingenuity (SR-71 or the Concorde), while others were "workhorses" that outlived the original expectations towards them (like the C-130 and DC-3). Which of the two categories does the Cessna 172 belong to?
Seems like the 172/182 planes would fall under the 'workhorse' category. Still being produced new 60 years later without being phased out for something newer is a pretty impressive testament to the design.
It's almost as if they are the quintessential airplanes. Not in terms of performance, but like, if you want to show aliens how to make fixed-wing, heavier-than-air aircraft and you want to give them a "reference implementation" that illustrates the basic principles, you give them a Cessna 172/182. Easy to fly and to maintain, comprehensible by a technician without the specialized knowledge demanded by high-performance jets and stuff.
It's a bit of both, but it's much more so that they built a lot of them, and then threats of lawsuits basically tanked general aviation production in about 1985 and it's never really recovered - so there is a heavy bias towards older design.
Even the 172 itself was out of production for over a decade (1986-1996). Peak production on the 172 (in the 60s) was ~1400/yr. In 2019 they built 52.
I have a Cessna T206 and it’s by far (in my opinion,) the most versatile piston single in existence.
It’s pretty hard to stall.. I can get as slow as 40 knots indicated before it fully stalls. I can fly super slow approaches if needed or come in fast. I can take off in 715 feet, land in 675. Fly legally 27,000 feet; It has onboard oxygen. Cruise at 18.5 gallons per hour at 150kts+ true airspeed and it can hold 117 gallons of gas and has a 3800 pound gross, 6 removable seats, and about a 1300 pound useful load. With WAAS, Active Traffic, XM weather, Synthetic Vision, Terrain Awareness — it’s like flying a mini-airliner. And hundreds of thousands cheaper than a Cirrus SR22T.
The only thing I wish I had was a FIKI system, but that’s about an $80k retrofit and kills some of the useful load.
Cessna is one of the greatest aircraft manufacturers around. Cool thing about the 206 is that transitioning from the 172 is pretty simple. Similar flight characteristics, just a lot more inertia to manage. I’ve flown the Cirrus and it’s a great airplane, but a lot less forgiving a slow speeds and it can’t carry a 55 gallon drum like the 206. I also wouldn’t want to land a Cirrus on anything remotely backcountry.
As far as trainers, the 172 is hard to beat, with a Diamond DA-40 coming in a close second. I know a lot of Piper folks might disagree, but the 172 is probably the best training aircraft out there, and with the Garmin G1000, training in a 172 is great experience for flying more advanced stuff later. (Honorable mention to the 150/152, but on a hot day with full fuel, it can be a struggle.)
I love the DA-40, it was definitely a step up in capability from the 172 after I got my ticket. But the one time I flew it through the Mojave I definitely felt the DA-40's roots as a glider, I got pretty tossed around!
I have about 1300hrs in 206s. They are great for off airport operations, and can handle very stiff crosswinds in the right hands, but I don't have much else good to say about them. PITA to get into, slow, and they handle poorly on the ground and in the air.
I'll take a Cherokee 6 over a 206 any day of the week! Cherokee can haul more too. I've helped put a little Bravo snow machine into a 206, but I've carried coffins in the Cherokee...
While Cessnas have a great history and have trained the majority of pilots out there today, badass is hardly the word I'd use to describe them.
I was lucky enough to have over a thousand hours before I flew a Cessna for the first time and I remember being shocked at how terrible it flew. They are overpriced for what they are, handle like crap, have terrible visibility, and are slow and inefficient.
It's sad that overregulation and the cost prohibitive certification process has essentially locked innovation in GA back at 60's technology.
The EAA world is where the good stuff is happening today.
Could you try using words instead of those? It makes comment hard to read for people unfamiliar with the subject, which is a shame because it looks interesting
I agree. I have around 1500 hrs in 150s/172s/206s, and about the same in Piper Cherokees, Twin Comanches, and Navajos. I'd pick Piper any day of the week in any category. Except for maybe off-field operations Pipers are better airplanes in every way.
Recently heard the boss of Ryanair saying that he'd never travel by helicopter, it's not safe enough. How safe is travel in a light airplane compared to a commercial airliner, I wonder?
Helicopters and light aircraft vs Boeing/Airbus seem like motorcycles vs car to my safety first mind.
(And the accidents that do occur on commercial flights are mostly small cargo planes... for major airlines that number would be more like 0.01 although it's hard to really get good numbers at that point because the numerator is so small... there are years when the US doesn't have a single fatal commercial passenger crash)
"Amateur-built and other experimental aircraft [like fighter jets] were involved in almost 25 percent of U.S. fatal general aviation accidents over the past five years and account for an estimated five percent of total general aviation fleet hours." [1]
There are a few more extenuating factors that account for a significant fraction of the rest of the fatality rate. It's just like the driving fatality rate - by eliminating drunk driving, speeding, exhaustion, texting, etc., driving becomes significantly safer than it is on paper average over the entire population. That fatality rate certainly does not represent even a mildly experienced pilot in a 172
And how many of those were from equipment failure, rather than pilot error? The famous helicopter crashes that come to mind (e.g. Kobe, Bill Graham) were not from mechanical failure.
I was talking to a guy in my squadron whos also a rated helicopter pilot when the Kobe crash happened, and he was explaining how much easier it is to become disoriented in a helicopter because you can freely move in any direction, unlike a plane, you're always moving forward. Additionally, he was saying many helicopter pilots don't stay current in IFR flying.
It matters a lot; I am flying very relaxed knowing the type the plane I fly has a very good track record of reliability and most problems happened due to pilot error. At least I know that if I respect the rules and don't do stupid things I am almost as safe as a commercial airliner and that is considered the safest means of transportation we have.
And I know enough about planes not to fly a GA plane with an unknown pilot. It works for me, I have my own license, so the main criteria is the plane reliability and that is different between various models.
That's a low bar. The vast majority of helicopter operations are commercial (They're EXPENSIVE, so pleasure helicopters...don't really exist), and the accident rate is far far worse than commerical fixed wing... 20x or more.
Chainsaw-juggling is as safe as knitting if you ignore human error. Safer, in fact, as so few chainsaw jugglers die of old age while engaging in their hobby.
I'm not sure anyone would say chainsaw juggling was safe, though.
Something to keep in mind about helicopters is that they're not a lot of them, so one accident makes the hourly accident rates go way up. Another is that helicopters take on dangerous missions. American Airlines isn't flying people to oil rigs or plucking you out of a car accident in a snowstorm. As a result, they enjoy better accident rates.
Technical problems are relatively rare in General Aviation and most of the time they are caused by human factors: improper or delayed maintenance. Pilot error is the major cause of accidents and fatalities in GA, making GA a lot less safe than commercial airliners. I read accident reports all the time, even the plane I fly the most was involved in a major incident, GA pilots are less experienced, less trained and less disciplined than commercial pilots.
That being said, I think light planes are still safer than helicopters. I talked to a few helicopter pilots, I had instructors that also fly helicopters, autorotation is working sometimes, gliding works almost every time, so I prefer a light plane over a helicopter at any time.
Watch some of the Air Safety Institute videos on YouTube. I believe 90% of general aviation accidents are VFR rated pilots flying into IMC (i.e. flying into clouds).
In 2016 there were 1,036 non-commercial general aviation accidents. 13 were caused by VFR into IMC, or 1.3%. 54% were fatal accidents. They accounted for 4.4% of fatal accidents.
Big issue with light airplanes is you can't fly through serious inclement weather as it'll cause dangerous icing conditions that the big Boeing/Airbus type aircraft can. Some light aircraft have deicing or anti-icing, but its pretty rare.
Having flown into icing conditions in both airplanes with and without deicing, I can say this is the largest differentiation in my personal comfort level in an airplane.
Not even a nod to Piper in the whole article... scandalous!
I've trained in both a Cessna and a Piper Supercub, both were great.
The Supercub felt dodgy with just a single stick, but it was also felt agile and like I was actually participating in flying. The Cessna felt like driving a station wagon in the sky. Rock solid and reliable.
Both are great, honestly just surprised at how the author dodged talking about one of the Big 3.
While they make a lot of great points in the article I think there is one that is missed. The 172 is CHEAP! You can pick up a Skyhawk for under $30k. That's a big part of why they are the training vehicle of choice (in addition to the other points they make). This makes it the Model-T of aircraft. It really is the plane for the masses.
172s are typically MORE expensive for what you get. The training commonality causes their price to go up on the resale market and the new ones cessna still makes are ludicrously expensive.
Just about any other aircraft in its class will be just as good or better but cost substantially less.
I should also add, the 172 is terrible for just about every mission set outside of training. They can barely only carry 3 people safely (2 with bags) but are very slow, heavy, and expensive to operate compared to a dedicated 2 seater. If you want 3+ seating and bags go buy a 182 or something :)
The problem is the same is true about 2-seaters, except they only really seat 1. :)
I have a '78 172 w/ 180HP STC, and I think it's a pretty good sweet spot. You can take a friend, a ton of bags, full fuel on long range tanks, and still climb easy on a humid day. You can also travel light, dial back the throttle and cruise around at 5.5GPH, making it similar in cost to operate to a 152 (still a 2000 vs 2400 TBO though).
Your main point is well-taken: you definitely pay a performance-per-dollar premium for using the world's most popular training platform. But you also get some benefits: the most familiar and one of the most forgiving airframes ever made; a platform that every A&P knows inside and out and every supplier stocks parts for; and a plane that can very easily get in and out of any strip you can spot.
You definitely don’t want a $30k Skyhawk. Flight schools snap up the good ones very quickly, and all you will find at that price are ones with run out engines and 10k hours. A $30k 150/152 though... that’s a good deal.
Anyone wanting a really nice, efficient, and cheap airplane should look at a Grumman Tiger or Cheetah instead. It's one of the best kept secrets of the aviation world IMHO. Just obscure enough to not get flight school damage, but common enough that they are easy to find and reasonable to service.
> The 172 is CHEAP! You can pick up a Skyhawk for under $30k.
Maybe 20 years ago.
A new one is $300k now, and pretty good used ones with steam gauges are $60k. A 2000-hour engine overhaul is $20k to $25k and outside tie-downs in the Bay Area are $500+/month.
San Jose Reid-Hillview is being closed, so keep that in mind.
We'll see, but NIMBYs have made a concerted effort for decades, and it looks like they finally figured out an argument that will work.
The only way the closure will be stopped is if the State says it's needed for San Jose-area earthquake relief, which it is, and a politician realizes another one cannot be built later in a dense urban area.
(SFO, SJC and OAK operate as one airspace in the Bay Area.
SFO has limited capacity during fog because the runways were built too close together for simultaneous IFR operations. So RHV is pretty handy to keep in operation, unless, of course, you want to develop a new subdivision in the Evergreen area of San Jose.)
Fun fact: In the some countries (for example the US) you can fly solo passenger ultralight helicopters & airplanes with no training or legal requirements as long as it’s in unregulated airspace. Warning: Doing so likely end up resulting in serious bodily harm, if not death.
> Fun fact: In the some countries (for example the US) you can fly solo passenger ultralight helicopters & airplanes with no training or legal requirements as long as it’s in unregulated airspace. Warning: Doing so likely end up resulting in serious bodily harm, if not death.
To use an IT analogy, those are MVPs - minimally-viable aircraft.
Most ultralights don't have closed wings, so there's no structure as the public would understand it. So spend $20,000 and get the best ultralight available if you go this route. I wouldn't take friends or family up in an ultralight since they can't evaluate the risks.
Beyond that, LSA aircraft only require a drivers licence, and look like real airplanes. But no night or IFR operations are allowed. These were supposed to be cheap, but are priced like real airplanes since buyers demand glass panels, etc.
You only need a driver's license to meet the medical requirements, but in the US you still need a sport pilot's license to fly light sport, which is most of a "full" private pilot's license.
You wouldn’t believe the amount of times I had to explain stuff like this to guys who thought the Sport Pilot Certificate would be a breeze.
It’s like 90% of the flight training content of the Private. For some reason, the FAA thought it would also be good to drop the minimum time from 40 hours to 20 hours when they made Sport Pilot. This especially makes no sense because almost no one finishes the Private in 40.
So AOPA, EAA and the LSA manufacturers get old guys hyped on getting a pilot’s license with only 20 hours in the cockpit plus 0 time in the doctor’s office, and they walk into my flight school. Then we have to a conversation about realistic training expectations and how if there’s “no way in hell” you’d get a medical, maybe we should consider if being pilot-in-command of an airplane is really for you.
> if there’s “no way in hell” you’d get a medical, maybe we should consider if being pilot-in-command of an airplane
The FAA medical exam was expanded to evaluate people for neck size/apnea. So for most overweight Americans, seeking a PPL or Sport, they're better off going LSA to avoid paying for a sleep study and risking a medical rejection, which will cause life-long FAA problems.
I would suggest that instructors should figure out if a student confuses flying an airplane with operating a boat. One is pure work, and the other is perceived as pure relaxation.
(Boating used to be equated with drinking beer, but I think it's illegal to operate a boat now while drinking, after some horrific accidents.)
I didn’t know about the neck and weight thing. This was almost 10 years ago though. The guys I talked to usually already had heart problems or were at high risk.
Looks like the FAA got concerned around 2013 and started getting official in 2015. The AME is supposed to do a mandatory BMI calculation, look at a table, record the result, and decide if you need "special processing."
So you (or your students) could check their BMI and get in shape before the exam, or just go the LSA route.
I'm not shopping for an airplane and probably never will, but this category of gear is exactly what I look for whenever I buy other stuff. Uremarkable stuff with looong production runs, preferably several decades. Keywords I look for: "workhorse", "rugged", "most sold". It's almost never the best gear that falls into this category, but the $/utility is often fantastic.
It is interesting to see how the 50ies and 60ies were a time, where a lot of aircraft were designed, which are still flying to day, including the 747. The technology had become just good enough to come up with long-lasting designs.
One major role though has the fact, that airplane development is quite costy, especially certification of new aircrafts and their components. That is why most engines lag quite far behind automotive designs.
There might be an interesting time coming up though, as aviation is looking into eletrification. There are already some electric airplanes available, and this is going to stir up the industry a lot. This usually means completely new designed aircraft, so companies can start with a clean sheat. Also, the expensive maintenance of the engines is radically reduced.
I learned on a Piper. My friend learned on a Cessna. When he received his license went went for the traditional $100 hamburger (he rents a plane and flys us someplace for lunch). He rented a Piper. It was a very hot year. It was over 100F out on a concrete runway. On his 3rd landing pass I said "your wings are on the bottom" at which point he was able to land perfectly. Anyone here guess why?
IMO the main feature of the Cessna 182 is its very slow stalling speed. If you think about it, the stalling speed is the one thing that you can use to make a really tiny plane safer than a large plane that may have two or more engines.
There isn't really a risk of flying into a traffic light post, where the opposite is true: Heavy cars are safer, as your momentum will carry you in a crash and extend contact time.
> Cessna has no timeline for the JT-A and the diesel 172. [1]
This is quite interesting, as I have flown in a diesel trial Cessna 182. They paid people some nominal amount to test their diesel engine, and there were several failures (though not fatal as far as I know). That plane was sold eventually, but it seems like overall the trial was a failure. I am not aware of technical reasons that should in theory stop a jet or diesel engine. I can only share the anecdote of small recurrent problems.
And yes, it's loud! That's true; as is the fact that the attendant at the airport will refuse to put jet fuel in your 182 until you start it or otherwise convince them that you are not mistaken.
Isn't that category basically unregulated (and un-usable commercially)? There don't seem to be too many new planes coming out in the 2-4 seat GA class.
Last I read (might be out of date now) Cessnas still had such modern features as manual air/fuel mix adjustment.
> Isn't that category basically unregulated (and un-usable commercially)?
Correct.
> There don't seem to be too many new planes coming out in the 2-4 seat GA class.
We'll see. China bought about 20 US small mfgs. recently, including Cirrus, Mooney, Superior, etc., so it's up to them what US aviation holds. Yup, we sold our future on the altar of ROI.
> Last I read (might be out of date now) Cessnas still had such modern features as manual air/fuel mix adjustment.
172R (1996) was first model with fuel injection. But be careful what you wish for ... 172 2020 price is $398,000.00.
regulation is certainly part of it, but i think it's more of a demand thing; ga is kind of dying.
i was hopeful for the lsa program, but other than some bright spots it hasn't spurred the ga innovation revolution that its proponents thought it would.
the faa missing the mark with basicmed also didn't help.
I thought it was lawsuits that killed certified GA innovation back from about the mid-80s to the mid-90s. As lutorm wrote in the other reply, E-AB kind of took over in the area of modern innovation.
How’d they miss the mark with BasicMed? I think it could be expanded somewhat (gross weight over 6000), but overall it seems like a quite good program.
good article, minus the 'soviet embarrassment' part. It might have gotten a few politicians sacked, but it was absolutely the right thing to do and nothing to be ashamed of. There was no loss of life. After determining this was a slow moving commuter aircraft, Mathias Rust had a combat number assigned to him, and SAM tracking for the majority of his 3 hour flight into red square. Compared to Cuba, which routinely used to blow cessnas out of the air with callous precision, the Soviet Union is pretty disciplined.
Had this been the United States anytime after 9/11, this Cessna would have been strewn over a cornfield somewhere and the pilot condemned as a terrorist. Our police officers routinely execute entire cars full of people for no other reason besides jewelery theft or speeding.
no. That case did very impressively demonstrate complete rottenness and impotence of the System. There is nothing to eat, no goods to buy, etc... yet at least the mighty military protects the country. And here that big Opppsss! The King wasn't just naked, his guns had completely rusted (didn't intend, yet the pun just naturally came about). The mighty military happened to be at about the same state as the rest of the country. The Berlin Wall fell 5 month late together with the others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989.
> After determining this was a slow moving commuter aircraft, Mathias Rust had a combat number assigned to him, and SAM tracking for the majority of his 3 hour flight into red square.
that tracking number was mistakenly assigned to different objects in the sky when transferred between air defense zones. Had they decided to blow it off the sky, it could have been something else entirely, not Rust.
"Air defence re-established contact with Rust's plane several times but confusion followed all of these events. The PVO system had shortly before been divided into several districts, which simplified management but created additional overhead for tracking officers at the districts' borders. The local air regiment near Pskov was on maneuvers and, due to inexperienced pilots' tendency to forget correct IFF designator settings, local control officers assigned all traffic in the area friendly status, including Rust.[1]
Near Torzhok there was a similar situation, as increased air traffic was created by a rescue effort for an air crash the previous day. Rust, flying a slow propeller-driven aircraft, was confused with one of the helicopters taking part in the rescue. He was spotted several more times and given false friendly recognition twice. Rust was considered as a domestic training plane defying regulations, and was issued least priority.[1] "
I made my first (and one of just a few) parachute jumps out of a Cessna. Looking back, the plane seemed tiny. I think we had 2 or 3 jumpers, a jump-master and a pilot crammed in there.
I guess it’s how you define “badass”. I flew 172 for a while. I may as well had driven a large, slow truck. There has been no innovation at Cessna in at least 50 years.
Anyway can’t do a real day trip like the f35 pilot but still spend quite a lot time to fly in x11. Quite good in surfing and looking around. Wait for Xbox and Microsoft simulator.
I own a Mooney, which burns 10 GPH and does 160kts. Fits two people just fine and three if you sacrifice fuel. A good trade off over all. Definitely think the 172 is the least badass plane with almost no upsides other than being a good trainer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Bonanza
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_M20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancair_IV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-12